"If you train up a child in the way that they should go, when he is old, he will not depart from it." ~ From an excerpt of Michael D. Jones' 'Learn From Obama' [For years, I have urged young litigators to employ the full power of language and to study great oratory. Now I would urge them to study Obama’s speeches...]
One of Bob Oster's CEO friends wrote this. Bob respects him highly. (For those on this list who don't know Bob: he was CFO of Oracle when it went public, also CFO of Syntex, and holds a Ph.D. in economics from Berkeley. Since 1987, he has been an angel investor and private VC. He is on the Board of Overseers at the Hoover Institution.)
A 6 Month Evaluation of the Obama Presidency
In November 2008 I wrote out my evaluation of the Obama candidacy and what it might mean to America. I filed this away, but sent it to family members and a few close friends and associates just so I’d be accountable for my real time observations. It’s now been 6 months since Obama’s inauguration. (In the business world, this is typically when a first job review would occur; so, I made a note to myself to revisit his performance on the 6-month anniversary.) Thus, I now commit to filing my mid-year evaluation of our new President. As well, I’ve put in the file (but not forwarded to anyone) a separate “background check” — the one the press should’ve done on the Obama candidacy prior to presenting him to the American public — in case this is ever of relevance as things unfold.
As concerned as I was by Obama’s candidacy when I wrote out my November pre-election reservations, truth be known, I didn’t much like McCain either. At the time, I still had hopes that Obama might “govern from the center.” Six months into it, however, I can say that he’s been considerably worse than my worst fears. Thus, I’m updating my evaluation — this time with the fervent hope that by the year-end I can be genuinely more optimistic.
I’ve concluded that not only was Barack Obama too inexperienced to be President, but he also appears to be incompetent as an executive, more-than-just-politician-level-dishonest and a bit of a narcissist (if not a fascist). He seems to have little understanding of American history, her dreams, or her tremendous potential for risk-taking, self-correction and innovation. He and Michelle have turned out to be quintessential Ivy League “Oppression Studies majors” with (carefully concealed) “attitudes.” Obama seems, above all, to be a Community Organizer with shakedown credentials and extraordinary speaking ability.
All of this should have been clear -- had we simply done serious background checks. (The following 4 items, at least, should have been clear to voters:
1. His surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist.
2. Barack served as a committed trainer for Community Activist and Marxist Saul Alinsky.
3. He sat for nearly 2 decades at the feet of Jeremiah Wright, an angry, anti-American “Black Liberation Theologist”.
4. His first autobiography, Dreams from My Father, was almost certainly ghost-written by William Ayers, a Vietnam-era domestic terrorist. [This last assertion has now been supported by careful analysis of syntax, spelling and common errors].) If these unusual threads (standing alone) are discounted to the point of not being disqualifiers, those evaluating Barack Obama might have considered that he’d never
i) held a job in the private sector,
ii) managed a payroll,
iii) led a turnaround or
iv) held any sort of executive position.
But, none of this mattered in the fall of 2008. After 6 months, I’m left wondering if power brokers on the Far Left of American politics aren’t pinching themselves at their success in creating a fictitious character the press ushered to market in a Bush-weary and "politically correct" America.
In his second (!) autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, Obama recognizes the advantage of his tabula rasa “creation” when he writes, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
And, project we did! Thus, the former Barry Soetoro of Honolulu, Jakarta, Mombasa, Occidental, Columbia, Harvard and the mean streets of Chicago moved at light speed from being the first-term senator nobody had ever heard of to President of the United States. In the process, despite numerous efforts, no one has yet seen his birth certificate, his college transcripts, his application to Occidental (likely as a “foreign student”?), or the passport he used to travel in 1981 to Pakistan with buddy Wahid Hamid (likely an Indonesian one?).
For some reason, the Obama campaign has, so far, spent $750,000.00 keeping these records out of public view. So, it’s easy to wonder -- if they supported Obama’s putative CV(resume) -- why not make them available and put to rest all suspicions about provenance, training and politics?
My growing hunch is that there’s virtually no paper trail because the Obama biography has been largely a fabrication. There -- I’ve said what increasing numbers of people must be thinking, but are afraid to voice. But, whether or not Obama is more than a cleverly-marketed fiction, and whatever one thinks of his history, one thing is clear. He finally does have a record to evaluate. And, it’s not a confidence-inspiring one from my standpoint.
At best, Obama is an attractive symbol for America and a compelling communicator; but he’s
1.. Not an executive. He’s shown an utter inability to focus, to set priorities and to consider 2nd and 3rd order or long-term consequences to his actions. Lack of focus on priorities is fatal as a CEO; (but, maybe less so for a political leader?)
2.. Not a steward or fiduciary for America. Obama clearly does not see his primary job as one of overseeing the security and well-being of America during his tenure as its Chief Executive. He’s not only unwilling to stand up for America, but he also regularly seems to go out of his way to apologize for her history. This makes it apparent that he believes his most important job is to change America into what he and Michelle think it shouldhave been had we not suffered the Founders’ flawed vision.
At worst, Obama’s aims seem truly radical (if stealth); his methods pure Alinsky; and his success derivative of obfuscating the truth, creating crises, and rushing changes into law that no one can possibly absorb under artificial deadlines — all aimed at limiting private property rights, changing the Constitution and forever altering our free market system.
For those who consider Obama’s training and background irrelevant, they can now evaluate him as a Commander-in-Chief and CEO from what he’s done over his first 6 months.
Among many other things, these evidences have come in the form of:
1.. A $787B “stimulus” package (sold as preventing a “crisis from becoming catastrophe”)
2.. The failure to focus on addressing the banking crisis as “Job One”
3.. The migration of TARP funds to non-banking concerns, viz., auto industry
4.. Announcing tax increases in the middle of a recession
5.. Failure to identify projects to fund job creation (Thus, <10%>
12 comments:
"His surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist"?
According to "Dreams," Davis was a family friend whom he turned to occasionally for advice, and whom he didn't even visit for three years while in high school. How is this is "surrogate father figure"?
According to Accuracy In Media, Davis was a closet communist, not an "avowed communist."
Do you have any primary source evidence to support your claims?
Storm'n Norm'n said...
I am not the author of the post but I offer this from the House Un-American Activities Report to Congress:
"...Frank Marshall Davh^ author of a regular weekly column in the
Honolulu Record entitled "Frankly Speaking." Mr. Davis' column
defends Communists and attacks capitalism with the same vigor as
columns appearing regularly in the Daily Worker and other frankly
Communist publications. Typical of Mr. Davis' remarks are the
following :
Democracy today lies weak and slowly dying from the poison administered
by the divident doctors in Washington and Wall Street who have fooled a trusting public into believiag that they are the specialists who would save us from the
dread diseases of socialism and communism * ♦ * They hope to hand us
fascism disguised as the healed democracy (Honolulu Record, July 28, 1949, p. 8).
Mr. Davis constantly defended the 11 top United States Communist
officials recently convicted in New York on charges of conspiracy to
advocate the overthrow of the Government by force and violence.
One of Mr. Davis' comments on the case was as follows :
I feel strong sympathy for the Communist minority who are being oppressed
for their political beliefs (Honolulu Record, October 20, 1949, p. 6).
When Mr. Davis' column first appeared in the Record in May 1949,
the Record boasted that the author was a member of the national
executive board of the Civil Rights Congress. The organization is
cited as Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark as well as by the
Committee on Un-American Activities. Mr. Davis has signed a
number of statements in behalf of Communists under the sponsorship
of the Civil Rights Congress; one of these defended was Gerhart
Eisler, notorious Communist international agent who escaped jailing
for passport fraud by fleeing to the Soviet sector of Germany.
Other front organizations of the Communist Party with which Mr.
Davis has associated include : American Youth for Democracy, Abra-
ham Lincoln School, National Federation for Constitutional Liber-
ties, League of American Writers, the National Negro Congress, and
the Hawaii Civil Liberties Committee. ..."
I don't believe one could be classified as a closet communist if they publish their ideology in a newspaper.
From the above text:
"When Mr. Davis' column first appeared in the Record in May 1949,
the Record boasted that the author was a member of the national
executive board of the Civil Rights Congress."
Boasting is pretty close to "self-avowed"
A "front" organization is one that is SECRETLY affiliated with a sponsor. Many people were sympathetic to communists and even accused of being communists during the red scare days, such as Dr. King. Being accused or "cited" does not make anyone "self-avowed."
Davis never confirmed CPUSA membership in public. Therefore, he was not "self-avowed. Being "self-avowed" and a "closet member" are mutually exclusive.
Close doesn't count in pregnancy either.
All privacy is gone once you start publishing your mindset in public newspapers.
One could go on and on disputing what some call facts and/or twisting such facts to meet one's own belief for fear of losing that mindset. When the mind is branded (as a steer with a hot iron), it is difficult to be objective. Some people go through life like that...
Given all the material currently available, Davis was a communist and he made no bones about it...I believe that...maybe you don't...one of us is branded!
Is there much difference between "avowed" and "closet" when it comes to communism?
One of communism's tactics is denial of being a communist and masking the belief in words.
Davis was notroious for denials of being a communist while saying he was actually a "social realist" and railing against "big business interests, repression, censorship, thought control, the war machine, anti-communist hysteria, unemployment, reactionaries and fascism, segregation and racism."
Just a play on words from where I sit.
Thanks Lew,
I forgot all about that "denial" thing. Just like Alinsky, communists were famous for it!
It brings to mind that famous quote from a communist (forgot his name) back in the 30's, "All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."
There is little doubt that he was a member of the CPUSA. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not he was an "avowed" communist.
His writings are easily available online. I challenge you to find ANY primary source evidence that he supported collectivism.
It may be helpful to read "The New Red Negro," cited by AIM's Cliff Kincaid as a reference on African-American involvement with the CPUSA during the 1930s & 1940s.
It also cannot be forgotten that when asked outright if he was a communist, ut hte House UN-america activities committee, Frank did not deny it but pled the 5th amendment, not wanting to incriminate himself.
While doing so is not an open admission of guilt, it sure leaves onlookers assuming such.
Ref:"There is little doubt that he was a member of the CPUSA. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not he was an "avowed" communist."
I could care less if he was an "avowed" communist...
The issue is, he was a communist and he taught Obama a few things...end of story!
Aren't you interested in WHAT "few things" he taught Obama? His book indicates Davis only gave him ethnic advice.
University of Kansas Professor Edgar Tidwell, whom AIM's Cliff Kincaid cites as "an expert on the life and writings of Davis," dismisses misrepresentation of Davis's influence in one simple paragraph:
"Although my research indicates that Davis joined the CPUSA as a "closet member" during World War II, there is no evidence that he was a Stalinist, or even a Party member before WWII. Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology. Frank Marshall Davis did NOT believe in overthrowing the USA. He was committed to what the nation professed to be. For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle to achieve a political end-a possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans."
BTW: As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. in 1989, I am researching political disinformation. I am familiar with disinformation campaigns, including Pope Gregory's misrepresentation of Mary Magdalene, Russian and German misrepresentation of Judaism, Operation Fortitude protecting the D-Day invasion, Operation Left Hook protecting the coalition drive into Kuwait, and the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat this century. This disinformation campaign fits the pattern epitomized by "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," where a target is smeared through deliberate misrepresentation. Relying on unsubstantiated claims of mentorship to implicate Obama makes no more sense than relying on Curveball's unsubstantiated claims of mobile weapons labs to implicate Iraq.
Frank Marshall Davis rejected collectivism. He was a capitalist. He owned two paper companies, and sold advertising specialties, in Hawaii. He joined the CPUSA because of the professional and social opportunities it presented. He joined the CPUSA during WWII, just as the United States joined the Soviet Union during WWII, not because they shared the delusion of a communist utopia. Each was a marriage of convenience. He joined because membership had its privileges, such as professional and social opportunities. He considered membership in the CPUSA as a "vehicle and tool" because, according to "The New Red Negro" (cited by AIM's Cliff Kincaid as a source):
"ONLY the Communist left had any significant institutional impact on African-American writing during the 1930s and 1940s. This support was crucial as the institutions that had maintained the New Negro Renaissance faded. And for better or for worse, the leading CPUSA functionaries involved in "Negro work" took a direct interest in African-American cultural production in a manner that was unusual, if not unique.
Vilifying a writer for continuing to publish in CPUSA-supported publications, when they provided his only significant institutional support, is completely unfair. Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, and Frank Marshall Davis all took advantage of this institutional support.
"A huge proportion of African-American poets (and writers and intellectuals generally) remained engaged with the Communist Left and cultural institutions from at least the early 1930's until at least the early 1950's. With the partial exception of the period from the German invasion of the Soviet Union to the end of the Second World War, the CPUSA placed the issue of race and the fight against Jim Crow near the center of all its work."
The bottom line is that communist ties were common for African-American poets and civil right activists during that period. Such ties did not mean that they internalized Marxist values, much less Stalinist values, even if they were aware of the distinction. To them, the CPUSA provided safe harbor from the ravages of Jim Crow America.
For those who question whether anyone would join the CPUSA without internalizing collectivist values, examples abound in more recent developments. Russians and Chinese joined their respective Communist parties because membership was important to professional advancement. Mikhail Gorbachev rejected these values in dismantling the Soviet Union. Leaders of the PRC's capitalist boom are nevertheless pro forma Party members. According to CNBC's "The People's Republic of Profit," the PRC now has over 100 billionaires - second only to the United States. Some Communist Party members are VERY successful capitalists!
Even today people join some organizations, such as churches and the YMCA, without internalizing their core values because membership has its advantages. I believe everyone will agree that many so-called "Christians" have not internalized Christian values. Some could argue that Stalinism perverted the core values of Marxism, just as the Spanish Inquisition and pedophile priests perverted the core values of Christianity.
Thanks for keeping an open mind and your willingness to discuss this topic in a civil manner.
Post a Comment